darwinwoodka.mastodon.social.ap.brid.gy
Fluffy Golden Retriever
[bridged from https://mastodon.social/@darwinwoodka on the fediverse by https://fed.brid.gy/ ]
2,163 posts
34 followers
14 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
@GottaLaff
no, you're not
comment in response to
post
The dataset includes the information of people living in #California, #Illinois, #Washington state & Washington, #DC, all of which ALLOW non-US citizens to enroll in #Medicaid programs that pay for their expenses using only #state taxpayer dollars. #CMS transferred the information just as the […]
comment in response to
post
“But I can go get them a passport by showing the DoS a birth certificate and essentially signing a statement as their parent saying they are who they say they are and they’re alive and showing them MY ID?”
SSA: “yep.”
/2
comment in response to
post
“So we need a government ID to get the social security card replaced, and a passport fulfills this requirement, because you can’t just take a birth certificate and my statement as their parent, with my ID, that they are still alive and who they say they are?”
SSA: “Yep.”
/1
comment in response to
post
@Nonilex fuck this bullshit
comment in response to
post
#ice #stephenmiller #uspol #trump #xkcd
comment in response to
post
@DebErupts good
comment in response to
post
Wow, nice turnout. #Utah #Protests
comment in response to
post
@joshuajfriedman.com fuck this asshole
comment in response to
post
@heidilifeldman weekend is gonna be interesting
comment in response to
post
@heidilifeldman fuck him
comment in response to
post
@raph Abolish.ICE.
comment in response to
post
Finally, court rules that California is likely to prevail on its 10th Amendment claim. The 10th A reserves police powers - protection of public safety and welfare - to the states. The Federal government may not march into the states to serve these purposes. 23/
comment in response to
post
“At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not. His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States […]
comment in response to
post
Some key background facts:
“Defendants did not notify Governor Newsom of their intent to federalize the California National Guard prior to issuing the June 7 Memo or the June 7 DOD Order.… Governor Newsom only learned of the June 7 DOD Order from the Adjutant General after the Adjutant General […]
comment in response to
post
Court notes that numerous sources testify to the fact that putting the National Guard on the streets of L.A. inflamed the protests. 4/
comment in response to
post
@heidilifeldman Hegseth and Noem both need to resign
comment in response to
post
Newsom informed Hegseth that his order to deploy National Guard was unlawful, that local law enforcement resources sufficient, and that deploying National Guard w/out adequate training or orders risked serious escalation of situation. Newsom asked Hegseth to rescind order.
Instead, Hegseth […]
comment in response to
post
“The parties have not introduced any evidence of any protesters carrying firearms, and there is no evidence of any organized (as opposed to sporadic) violence.” 6/
comment in response to
post
By law, Pres may only federalize Nat Guard of a State if U.S. is (about to be) invaded or there is a (imminent) rebellion against U.S. govt or if Pres is unable to execute fed laws with regular forces. Hegseth and Trump didn’t specifics which condition(s) they were relying on. Later DoJ said […]
comment in response to
post
Eyepoppingly, “Defendants also challenge whether the Court can even properly evaluate whether these conditions were met, asserting that § 12406 reserved this determination to the President’s discretion alone.” [more arrogation of dictatorial power to Trump] 9/
comment in response to
post
Court comes right back with Marbury v. Madison and Cohens v. Virginia, two bedrock precedents from early 1800s.
‘“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). Thus, federal courts have “no […]